This seems closely related to a previous issue I raised regarding the
use of RFC 2119 (in which I explicitly called out the URI opacity good
practice note as an example);
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0191.html
I thought this had been resolved (though it doesn't appear that way
now), but I can't recall what the resolution was. My apologies for
that.
The last mention of this I could find is;
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Nov/0042.html
But I don't believe that the opacity issue is a show stopper.
Mark.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 06:44:30AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>
> re http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040608/
>
> I have a bunch of editorial suggestions; I sent those
> to Ian separately (with copy to www-archive). Substantively...
>
> I had some reservations about this in 2.2:
>
> "To keep communication costs down, by design a URI identifies one
> resource. Since the scope of a URI is global, the resource identified by
> a URI does not depend on the context in which the URI appears."
>
> but they're pretty much addressed by section 2.4. URI Overloading;
> perhaps a forward reference would help; I'm not sure. Perhaps
> it's OK as is.
>
> Then... er... conflict?
>
> Good practice: URI opacity
>
> Agents making use of URIs MUST NOT ...
>
> How can a MUST NOT constraint be just good practice?
> Either change the label to "Design Constraint" or
> change the MUST NOT somehow.
>
>
> I don't know if that conflict is a show-stopper or not; I'd
> like somebody else to give an opinion.
>
> Otherwise, I give it a thumbs-up.
Mark.
--
Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Seeking work on large scale application/data integration projects
and/or the enabling infrastructure for same.